Middle Line Housing Project Goes to a Hearing in Chilmark

By MAX HART

A third and final public hearing is set for next week on
Chilmark's first town-sponsored affordable housing project, when
residents will have the chance to discuss the details of the Middle Line
Road plan.

But debate on the hot-button topic of the day - whether to
build rental units or resident homesites - will have to wait until
the project comes before voters at a special town meeting next month.

Instead, the housing committee and selectmen will present to town
residents on Tuesday night the latest - and final - design
for the development. Also at the hearing next month's warrant
articles will be introduced.

The hearing is set for 7:30 p.m. in the town hall meeting room. The
special town meeting will be held three weeks later on June 13 at the
Chilmark Community Center, when voters will decide whether to give the
project a green light - or not.

The Middle Line Road plan has been the subject of much discussion in
town, some of it heated. The development is planned for 12 units spread
over 21 acres of town-owned land located off Tabor House Road.

In recent months, however, there has been increased debate over what
the makeup of those 12 units should be.

Selectmen and the housing committee disagree over whether the units
should be all rentals, or a mix of rentals and resident homesites. The
housing committee has expressed a desire to keep the project mixed, as
was originally envisioned. Selectman J.B. Riggs Parker has been a
staunch advocate for rental units.

The final design for the project is the result of months of
meetings, including two public hearings. The plan calls for three
clusters of units spread out over the property, and unlike an earlier
version of the design handed out at town meeting, the final plan calls
for a mix of homesites and three duplex rental units.

At the regular selectmen's meeting Tuesday night, board
members spent over an hour hashing out language for the special town
meeting warrant articles. In the end they agreed on a 13-article warrant
- with 10 separate articles relating to the Middle Line project.

The housing articles will fall into three general areas, including:

* Whether to limit the development to rental units;

* Whether to use Community Preservation Act funds to finance
some of the project;

* Whether to adopt guidelines currently spelled out in the
housing committee's resident homesite program.

The housing committee and selectmen have worked on the plan for over
a year. Last fall selectmen hired South Mountain Company as a consultant
to conduct a feasibility study and develop conceptual plans. That study,
which called for an even split between rental units and resident
homesites, was based on a survey of the town conducted last year by the
housing committee where 67 per cent of respondents favored the mixed
use.

But on Tuesday night there was sharp division over the language and
content of warrant articles that did not mirror the consultant's
report.

"Why are we having a discussion on rentals?" asked
Candace daRosa. "The survey to the town showed that an
overwhelming majority wanted the project split between rentals and home
ownership. I am baffled as to where this question is coming from,"
she added.

"These are planning matters, and they have not been accepted
by the town," Mr. Parker replied. "The housing committee has
done good work, and now we need to take this to the voters," he
said.

Housing committee member Zelda (Zee) Gamson called the warrant
confusing.

"I think the issue is doing this right and having articles
written in a way voters understand, not leading them down some path that
is obscuring," Ms. Gamson said. "I'd look at it and
say, ‘What is all this?' It's an obscuring document,
not a clarifying one.

"I think it is very irresponsible of you to present this at
town meeting," she added.

Mr. Parker replied: "I have to really disagree. It was
designed so there will be an ordered discussion on these issues. To not
have it separated out will result in confusion."

The discussion turned heated at times. Housing committee chairman
Steve Schwab protested the decision to include articles relating to the
housing committee's guidelines for resident homesites.

Mr. Schwab said the guidelines were established by the housing
committee and presented to the public at an earlier hearing.

"To change the process, to bring them before the town for a
vote, changes how we created them originally, and that concerns
me," he said.

Mr. Parker said the guidelines were originally drawn for privately
owned land and may not even apply to this project.

Mr. Schwab and Mr. Parker debated the issue for some time. Finally
Mr. Parker ended the discussion.

"I'm not prepared to debate these articles or throw some
out if that is what you are talking about. I don't want to be
obscure about that," he said.

The meeting and the discussion went on, but the housing
committee's protest faded.

The following day, Ms. Gamson aired her frustration.

"One very good design, one very good plan that is respectful
of the land and will help 12 households is being complicated by various
maneuvers by the selectmen," she said on Wednesday. "I just
don't know what their plan is."